Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 232 (1.07 seconds)

Orchid - An Ecotel Hotel vs Rajendra J Doshi & 6 on 8 September, 2014

Society   and   others(supra),   they   provide   for   alternative  dispute  resolution  mechanism  in cases  where  consumers  are concerned, they do not oust the jurisdiction of normal  civil   Courts   or   other   authorities.   In   any   case,   nothing  stated   in   the   said   Act   impinges   the   basic   feature   of   the  constitution   of   judicial   review.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Shri. Sebastiao Teles, vs Manager, Bsnl Goa on 12 March, 2013

17. The Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Vishwa Bharati House Building Co-operative Society & anr., 2003 (2) SCC 412, has held that even when quantifying damages, they (the Fora) are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice aiming not only recompensing the individual but also to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Will there be a change in the attitude of BSNL after this order?
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri A. G. Sawant vs Shri Sanjay D. Berde on 18 July, 2013

and "order". As Section 27 uses the expression "order" and considering the penal character of the provisions, it must be presumed that the Legislature knowingly excluded interim orders from the purview of Section 27. It was also sought to be contended that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Coop. Society, 2003(2) SCC 578 where the view was taken that the power under Section 27 is the nature of an additional power for execution of the order, considering the subsequent amendment to the Act after the Judgment was delivered, will not apply.

M/S Sprng Soura Kiran Vidyut Private ... vs Southern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 24 February, 2023

23. While disagreeing with these observations of the Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop Society: (2003) 2 SCC 412, held that a legal fiction has been created by Section 25, to the effect, that an order made by District Forum/State Commission or National Commission will be deemed to be a decree or order made by a civil court in a suit; the legal fiction so created has a specific purpose i.e. for the purpose of execution of the order passed by the Forum or the Commission; only in the event the Forum/State Commission or the National Commission is unable to execute its order, the same may be sent to the civil court for its execution; the Karnataka High Court was, therefore, not correct in holding that, in each and every case, the order passed by the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission, was required to be sent to the civil courts for execution; further, Section 25 should be read in conjunction with Section 27 which conferred an additional power upon the Forum and the Commission to execute its orders; the said provision was akin to Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC or the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or Section 51 read with Order 21 Rule 37 CPC; the cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes is that courts or tribunals must be held to possess power to execute their own order; a statutory tribunal, which has been conferred the power to adjudicate a dispute and pass necessary orders, has also the power to implement its orders; and, as the Act is a self-contained code, it must be deemed to have conferred upon the Tribunal all powers in order to make its order effective, even if it has not been specifically spelt out.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State ... vs Anwar Ali, M/S Pinki Plastic Industrial ... on 10 April, 2008

In State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop.   Society [(2003) 2 SCC 412] the Court speaking on the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora held that the provisions of the said Act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible and the fora under the CP Act have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other fora/courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 67 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Shri A. G. Sawant vs Shri Sanjay D. Berde on 18 July, 2013

and "order". As Section 27 uses the expression "order" and considering the penal character of the provisions, it must be presumed that the Legislature knowingly excluded interim orders from the purview of Section 27. It was also sought to be contended that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Coop. Society, 2003(2) SCC 578 where the view was taken that the power under Section 27 is the nature of an additional power for execution of the order, considering the subsequent amendment to the Act after the Judgment was delivered, will not apply.

Tej Bahadur Thapa vs Branch Manager Of District Central on 22 August, 2016

In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Judge in the case of Operation Manager, Auto Loan Consumer Service Department, ABN Amro Bank Ltd. vs. Prabin Khaitan and Anr. (supra), and the ratio decided by another Hon'ble Judge in the case of Bhaskar Jalan and Anr. vs. M/s. Housing Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (supra), this Court is judicially bound to hold that the present revisional application is very much maintainable before this Court, particularly, when this Court is, prima facie, satisfied on the merit of the case that the finding arrived at by the State Commission is perverse. I have got this opportunity because the revisional application was heard on merit including the question of maintainability.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - S Munshi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next